I've been writing about political economy and foreign affairs since 2008, first from Forbes' New York offices, then as a freelancer with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting in South Asia, and now as a freelancer back in New York. I focus on the way economic forces--poverty, development, energy, natural resources, corruption, crime--shape national and international politics. What excites me is the possibility that an economic approach, by shedding new light on old problems, can point us to innovative solutions.

Does Empowering Women Improve the Economy?

Last week’s Lunch with the FT column featured an interview with Esther Duflo, MIT economist and co-author of Poor Economics. Duflo and her co-author Abhijit Banerjee run MIT’s Poverty Action Lab, where they use randomized control experiments – a model borrowed from drug testing – to evaluate the effectiveness of development projects. The book is a combination of lessons from these experiments about what approaches work, and an attempt to understand and explain why the poor sometimes make choices that seem ‘irrational’ to outside observers. It’s a great read, and I highly recommend it.

But I’m troubled by Duflo’s response to a question from the FT’s John Gapper about the role that women’s empowerment plays in eradicating poverty.

“Giving more to women will to some extent come at the expense of men. People sometimes try to sweep that under the rug by saying you will create so much additional resources that everyone will be better off.” She smiles wryly but firmly. “I don’t think that’s true.”

Duflo’s greatest contribution to development economics has been her emphasis on local data and her wariness of sweeping generalizations, so it is a surprise to find her making a generalization – without data – about the cost to men of women’s empowerment. It’s doubly surprising given that there is a wealth of research showing just the opposite:

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I wonder if the wealth Bill Gates holds today would benefit as many people as it has since he started using some of it for philanthropic causes if instead it was a woman who held so much power as an individual. Do women wish to aid society as a whole or just want to help out their own family/kin since they are so possessive and territorial with anything of value that can affect the well being of their own offspring?

Dear Ms Atal, This is a SUPERB overview of a most troubling oversight on the part of the authors you cite.

Quite rightly, you have appropriately (and with the commensurate urgency it deserves) cast the spotlight on one of the most malignant, persistent and systemic problems in the world, namely, the injustice meted out to humans of the female gender who continue to be under-appreciated, under-employed, underpaid, misrepresented, and persecuted in nearly every walk of life. Such oppression of roughly 50% of the human species is unacceptable by every standard known to humanity and must cease. Your succinct representative statistics make clear the broad 21st century agenda that must address and bring to closure the gender gap. Its surcease will not impinge one iota upon male supremacy, so called. Rather, it will meet the male self-importance (however flimsy, bloated and without substance) with an historic, long-overdue mellowing that can only ensure a prosperous economy, global parity that will translate into best conservation practices, ethical sustainability, and pragmatic equality.

What you have cited is basic; the sources are without peer; and the message, unambiguous. As the esteemed Ms Helen Clark so poignantly describes in her “Green Conversation” with me, also published this week in Forbes (“Helen Clark: UNDP’s Pragmatic Visionary”), closing this gender gap is absolutely essential. It will prove to be the greatest win-win in fighting poverty, injustice, economic and environmental deprivations of every persuasion.

Empowering woman would help in efficient utilization of resources called the “Human Resource” and hence will definitely help in improving the economy. The change should happen not only in the professional front but also in the home front so that responsibilities can be distributed and efficiency of a couple as a team increases. Men and Women should compliment each other.

@Benjamin – Even God helps those who help themselves and its a fact that if your needs are not met it is difficult for you to help others selflessly. So a woman might want to help their family / kin but when it comes to excess they are the ones to part with it selflessly with a happy heart and a smiling face.

As more women enter the workforce, and many become the primary breadwinners, there is a structural shift taking place in organizations and households. Especially for these talented women, we have recently released a new self-coaching guide that passes on career success secrets as written by co-author Barbara McEwen and myself over the last three years.

The concept of the book, “When Doing It All Won’t Do: A self-coaching guide for career women,” came about because of the very real, very important needs that our female clients repeatably expressed in their struggles with the countless roles and duties that are routinely placed on them. That is why Barb and I, as leading executive coaches of working women in North America, have a unique understanding of female perceptions that affect their work and home life challenges along with what approaches have worked well for our women clients.

Career women struggle with countless expectations, too much to do in too little time, and the fact that they receive little of the support or recognition they want and deserve. In an effort to squeeze even more into their nightmarish schedules, these women continue to make choices that actually undermine their health, family life, careers and important relationships.

Choosing to take the appropriate measures to advance our careers is a significant decision. Ultimately, the right decision for one woman may be entirely wrong for another. The choice belongs to each of us. As we noted, industry asks and expects a lot. But the demands will only change when women push through changes so no one will be expected to sacrifice family for success in business.

After spending time in the corporate world, many women choose to open their own businesses so they have more control over their time. More at: www.WomenandTime.com

I somewhat agree with Duflo. I think you might have taken her comment out of context. Yes, more people, man or woman, working in any economy is going to boost productivity, wealth, hence GDP. The World Bank and Economist reports you cite is a no brainer. The assumption of course is that for every woman added to the employment rolls a man doesn’t lose his job. If the assumption is wrong then your faced with a situation where you have a growing number of unemployed men at the expense of a growing number of employed women. I don’t why in God’s name you’d want even more unemployed men across the Middle East, if you catch my drift. Men don’t easily transition to being full-time at home dads. Especially not in that type of a culture. And men are more prone to conflict and violence, a bad combination if you ask me. To the first report, Goldman Sachs… Western Europe and Canada boast some of the most progressive child care/parental policies around. Yet you don’t see their birth rates skyrocketing. They fully depend on immigrants to cover their declining populations. So I don’t agree with their data, but that’s just my observation.

I don’t cite any evidence to the contrary, but then again there are no studies to the contrary so I’m stuck making my own assumptions. However, there’s a bias in the system, nobody challenges the notion of female empowerment openly. It’s something that everyone just nods there head to yes.

Now, there’s a lot of bias against women in the world that’s for sure. That has to be corrected no doubt about it, but I think the arguments used today such as the one above isn’t the right way to go about making the case. You do it because it’s simply fair and just, nothing more. Making the economic case so strongly is dangerous… the second anything to the contrary comes out or if we managed to employ countless women and the economy tanks yet again then people will be quick to dismiss everything you’ve said as BS.